| Home Page |
Column 693
Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you can help me with a point of procedure. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that the Select Committee on Health intends to publish its document on national health service trusts on 16 December. I have documented evidence showing that someone on that Committee intends to make that confidential report available a few days before-- [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker : Order. This is important. Will those hon. Members who are remaining in the Chamber please do so quietly? I need to hear the hon. Lady. I understand that she is telling me that a confidential document is to be made available.
Mrs. Mahon : I have documented evidence, Madam Speaker, that that report, which is a confidential document, will be made available a few days before the Select Committee decided that it should be made available. Last Wednesday, the Select Committee decided that the document should be made available 24 hours before the press conference.
The purpose of my point of order is to ask for your ruling on that latest leak from the Select Committee, which already has a case before the Select Committee on Privileges. I believe that the Health Select Committee's procedures are being abused, and I would like your ruling.
Madam Speaker : From what I heard of the hon. Lady's remarks--and I find it difficult to hear across a noisy Chamber--the matter to which she referred is not one with which I am familiar. It sounds as though there is some contempt involved, and I ask the hon. Lady to write to me without delay, when I will certainly consider her point.
Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston) : Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer to a different aspect, though one also related to the Health Select Committee's report. Will she confirm that the purpose of Select Committees is to monitor the Government's work, and will she consider--
Madam Speaker : Order. Is the hon. Lady referring to me when she uses the word "she"?
Mrs. Wise : I apologise, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that the purpose of a Select Committee is to monitor the work of a Government Department, and will you consider and advise us on whether the desperate eagerness being shown by the Government to obtain the report in order immediately to rebut it illustrates that they have no intention of giving the Select Committee's recommendations the careful consideration that it is the Government's duty to give them? Is it not a fact that the Government must reply to a Select Committee report within two months but that the Government intend to reply within two minutes? Is that not illustrative of the Government's complete contempt for the Select Committee system?
Madam Speaker : The hon. Lady has raised matters that must be taken up in that Committee or with Ministers. They are not breaches of our Standing Orders or our procedures at this stage. On the first point made by the
Column 694
hon. Lady, of course it is the task of the Select Committees to investigate as thoroughly as possible the workings of the appropriate Government Department.Mrs. Barbara Roche (Hornsey and Wood Green) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your assistance? Late this morning I received an emergency telephone call from a constituent who had a friend who was due to arrive in this country this evening from Lagos. The friend had been refused a visitor's visa by the British high commission in Lagos. I telephoned the high commission in Lagos and was informed that the second secretary refused to take my call. Is that not contempt of the House and obstruction of the work of Members of Parliament?
Madam Speaker : The hon. Lady alleges that she is being obstructed in her work as a Member of Parliament. If that is what she believes, it may well be a question of privilege and she should write to me immediately.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : Do you, Madam Speaker, concur that, if the Health Select Committee has taken a decision in deliberative session not to release its report until 24 hours before it is due to be published, no member of that Committee is in a position to reveal the report's contents to any member of the press or of the Government? Will you confirm that?
Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members put matters to me which are not points of order on which I cannot rule and of which I have no knowledge other than what has been said to me across the Floor of the House. It is unfair for them to expect the Speaker of the House to rule on matters on which he has no information or knowledge whatsoever.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye) : It is with some trepidation that I raise a point of order further to the issue of the Health Select Committee, but can you, Madam Speaker, advise me whether it is in order for our proceedings at a deliberative meeting of the Select Committee to be regarded as confidential so that no member of the press should be aware of those proceedings?
Madam Speaker : Of course ; I would have thought that every hon. Member was aware that hearings in a deliberative form are confidential to that Committee. Are there any more points of order?
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have noticed that twice this afternoon during questions there was a failure in the amplification system in the House. On two occasions when hon. Members were speaking the microphones were not open and it was extremely difficult to hear. I have formed the opinion in the course of the last six months that the present amplification system in the Chamber is not a patch on the old one. We were told that the present microphones were of greater sensitivity, but either the microphones are not well placed or they are not being well operated. Could this matter be looked into? Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South) rose --
Madam Speaker : Is it further to that point of order?
Mrs. Currie : Yes, Madam Speaker. Is the problem not with the microphones but with the fact that so many hon. Members look alike, which causes difficulties for the
Column 695
operator? Surely, if there were more women in the House who all looked different, the operators would have no trouble.Madam Speaker : The hon. Lady would not expect me to agree that there are any look-alikes in the House. But, in all seriousness, our equipment has been improved. Inquiries and investigations into it are still being made. I have no problem whatsoever, because I have my own equipment here, but I will have the matter looked into.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask, with what I hope is customary politeness, when you decided to advise the House of a closed question during Prime Minister's Question Time, and whether you intend to continue the practice?
Madam Speaker : It is not my practice to advise the House of a closed question, but I happen to think that, when a question is as closed as the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is a matter of courtesy to remind the hon. Member who is on his feet. Hon. Members often forget that questions are closed, and I think that it is preferable to avoid embarrassment.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, nowadays I am very reluctant to rise on a point of order ; the House is noisy enough without me. Nevertheless, I have to say-- and I have been saying it for years--that, since the introduction of these damned television cameras and the related hearing equipment, the whole purpose of the engineering control is to avoid any interference with the television output by our own bits of equipment, as you call them. That is the problem : the primary consideration is the audience outside, and hon. Members can go hang if they cannot hear.
Madam Speaker : That was a most interesting comment.
SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),
That the Matter of public expenditure in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration-- [Mr. MacKay.]
Question agreed to.
Column 696
Plain Language
3.41 pm
Mr. Gyles Brandreth (City of Chester) : I have no problem with either the technology or the amplification, Madam Speaker. I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure improvements to the language and layout of certain contracts.
Language is what disinguishes the human race ; it is the characteristic that sets us apart and makes us unique. Even I, as an ardent animal lover, must acknowledge that, however eloquently a dog may bark, he cannot tell us that his parents were poor but honest. Language makes us unique, and we in this country are born with the privilege of having a unique language as our parent tongue--English, the richest language in the history of humanity.
Our language is rich precisely because it is not pure. Emerson called it
"the sea which receives tributaries from every region under heaven."
It is the language of Chaucer and the King James Bible ; of Keats, Joyce, Anthony Trollope and Anthony Burgess. It has taken 2,000 years to reach this far--and where is it now, in 1992? Let me show you, Madam Speaker, by quoting from the terms of sale offered by that excellent builders' merchant, Jewson Ltd :
"If and to the extent that any person by whom the Seller has been supplied with the goods supplied hereunder (hereinafter referred to as the Supplier') validly excludes restricts or limits his liability to the Seller in respect of the said goods or of any loss or damage arising in connection therewith the liability of the Seller to the Buyer in respect of the said goods or of any loss or damage arising in connection therewith shall be correspondingly excluded restricted or limited."
There you have it, Madam Speaker : the English language today--and those were just five of more than 100 such lines that feature on the back of the Jewson delivery note. When the driver drops off the breeze block and says, "Sign here, guv", what I have just read out constitutes 5 per cent. of what the recipient is agreeing to--whether he likes it or not, and whether he understands it or not. Does it matter? Yes, I believe that it does. It cannot be good that people regularly sign contracts that they do not understand, and, indeed, are not meant to understand.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Has the hon. Gentleman read the Maastricht treaty?
Mr. Brandreth : As it happens, I have and I understood it, but I can understand that it might be a little sophisticated for the hon. Gentleman. However, the rest of this is in plain English, so he will feel wholly at home.
Costly mistakes can be made. A constituent of mine discovered that when he signed an incomprehensible contract to lease a photocopier. When he wanted to change the photocopier, he was faced with the option of a so-called settlement charge of about £10,000, which was three times the value of the original equipment, or the prospect of leasing the equipment, whose lifetime according to the manufacturer was three years, for a total of seven years. None of that was clear from the contract whose wording was deliberately obfuscatory and arcane. [Interruption.] Translation will come later!
The Bill is designed to encourage the use of clear, plain language in commercial contracts and to prevent the unscrupulous, arrogant or incompetent from hiding
Column 697
behind legalese, jargon, gobbledegook or small print. It would apply to consumer contracts, consumer credit contracts--think of all the confusion that we would all be spared if we understood the small print that comes with our Access cards--and housing contracts. The plain language that I have in mind is not so much the language of Shakespeare as that of Dickens, not William Shakespeare but Geoffrey Dickens--clear, no-nonsense language that says what it means and means what it says, language that is indeed a lean, mean fighting machine.A plain language law might appear to be a contradiction in terms because is it not the law and lawyers which are responsible for much of the gobbledegook found in contracts? I believe I am right in saying that in 1595 an English Chancellor chose to make an example of a particularly wordy document filed in his court. He ordered a hole to be cut in the centre of the document--all 120 pages of it--and had the author's head stuffed through it. The offender was then led around Westminster hall, 100 yards from where we are now--even 100 metres--as an example to all and sundry. Alas, that Elizabethan lesson did not stick ; and that is where I come in, four centuries later but not a moment too soon.
I propose that the contracts covered by the Bill should be written in clear and readily understandable language using words with common and every-day meanings, be arranged in a logical order, be suitably divided into paragraphs and headings, be clearly laid out and be easily legible.
It is not asking much, but you, Madam Speaker, might well ask, "Why do people sign contracts they don't understand?" Often it is because they are in no position to negotiate. Most consumer contracts are in standard form, drawn up by the supplier and offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The Bill would help consumers. It would also help businesses because those which have taken voluntary steps in the right direction have learnt that clear contracts have advantages and that intelligible contracts promote customers' trust and loyalty and encourage consumers to stick to their contracts. They also achieve savings in management and staff time. The new law would encourage better practice and, if necessary, would enforce it, although the sanctions that I propose are moderate.
The experience in the United States is that a plain language law such as this would immediately improve practice and standards, but, if a contract did not comply with the Act, the party which made the contract in the course of business would be liable to an action for damages brought by the other party--so there is also something in this for the lawyers.
That said, there is no question of any form of criminal penalty. Offending contracts would not be void, unenforceable or voidable. I propose compensation for the consumer who can show actual loss and, in some cases, a small sum of additional damages. I also propose, as back-up, an extension of the existing powers of the Director General of Fair Trading to deal directly with businesses which ignore the new law.
The case for such a law is overwhelming. Clear, coherent, easy-to-read consumer contracts bring advantages to consumers and to business, but the signs of voluntary implementation are piecemeal. I believe that, as
Column 698
in the United States, the chief merit of the new law would be its impetus for change. Alas, only legislation will prompt businesses to sit up and start to take notice of their own paperwork.I trust that the advantages of the Bill will be obvious to the House. Inevitably, some people will not see its virtues, but then, as the saying has it, a slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic to an equine quadruped utterly devoid of visionary capacity.
3.50 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : I shall not detain the House unduly, but I think that a protest must be made against the linguistic chauvinism of the speech by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). He referred to English being the mother tongue of all hon. Members, ignoring the native British languages which were spoken in this country when the speakers of Anglo-Saxon were howling, pagan barbarians.
If I were to speak in the language of this country, and if I were to say to you, Madam Speaker :
"When that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote"
Madam Speaker : Order. I would respond to the hon. Gentleman by saying that that is not understood in this House.
Mr. Flynn : With respect, Madam Speaker, it is in order because the language I am speaking is English. It is the English of Chaucer, to which the hon. Member for City of Chester referred. If I went on to quote in the beautiful language of Chaucer, I should be incomprehensible to you, Madam Speaker, and to every other hon. Member. I am allowed to use the language of Chaucer, but I am not allowed to use the language of Wales, which is understood by many people.
This is the only Parliament that Wales has, yet the language of Wales, the language of Scotland and the ancient language of Ireland are forbidden here. There are Parliaments that conduct their business in a dozen languages. I make that point because of the comments made by the hon. Member for City of Chester. His Bill called for plain English, but it should also call for plain Welsh, plain Gaelic and plain Irish Gaelic.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. David Willetts, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Roger Moate, Ms. Liz Lynne, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Roger Evans, Mr. Rod Richards, Ms. Joan Walley and Ms. Glenda Jackson.
Plain Language
Mr. Gyles Brandreth accordingly presented a Bill to secure improvements to the language and layout of certain contracts : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
Column 699
Opposition Day
[7th Allotted Day]
Unemployment
Madam Speaker : I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.52 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras) : I beg to move, That this House deplores the rising tide of unemployment with its intolerable cost to the British people ; notes with concern the high level of redundancies in British manufacturing industry, the falling level of job vacancies, and the steep increase in the number of long-term unemployed ; condemns the Government's Autumn Statement for its total failure to tackle the jobs crisis at a time when unemployment in Britain is rising faster than anywhere else in the European Community and is forecast to rise above 3 million once again ; regrets the continued neglect of training and investment in skills which are essential to the modern economy ; and further condemns the Government for squandering the opportunities of the British Presidency to develop a strategy for growth and employment for the whole of the European Community.
In plain language, in Britain today more than 4 million people are out of work. That is the real figure reflecting what is really happening to real people in the hard, real world of Britain today--a Britain in which 20 million working days are lost every week through unemployment. What a waste!
The Government do not publish the real figures. Instead, every month they churn out the official figures, reduced now by no fewer than 30 successive statistical fiddles. That shoddy process may reduce the embarrassment of Tory Ministers, but it does not reduce the job queues or the pain of unemployment.
Even if we take the Government's own figures, the rising tide of unemployment is there for all to see, to feel and to fear. Last month, there were 2,868,000 of our fellow citizens officially out of work. More than 30 unemployed people were chasing every job vacancy, with no fewer than 70 people chasing every job vacancy in London. Almost 1 million people had been out of work for more than a year. Some quarter of a million of the people out of work were young people who face the worst job prospects in our country's history. As we all know, there is worse to come. Parts of the country that once seemed almost immune to unemployment are now suffering as badly as the worst. After the job losses of the past two years, there are now fewer than 4.5 million people employed in manufacturing industry in Britain. Just 4.5 million people are left making things in a country with a population of 57 million. However, the Government do not seem to care. For years, they have been prepared to let British industry be wiped out, in the fond belief that the people of Britain could earn a living by selling one another hamburgers and insurance policies. Even the hamburger joints and the insurance companies are in trouble now.
Mr. Tim Smith (Beaconsfield) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson : No, not at the moment.
Column 700
The Tories keep saying that if an industry is not paying its way, it should be closed down. It is a good job for us that the rest of the world does not think like that, because, under the Tories, Britain is not paying its way. By the standards that the Tories have set, the Bundesbank would be sending in the brokers' men. The Tories used to claim that the factories that were closing were in rust-bucket industries which were bound to close. There was some truth in that, but it is not true any more. The 500,000 manufacturing jobs that have gone in the past two years are mainly from modern, high-tech industries with highly skilled work forces--the industries of the future if we are to have an industrial future.For far too long, far too many people have been without a job. When one loses one's job, one loses one's income and becomes dependent on benefits, if one is entitled to them. However, people who lose their jobs do not lose just their money. They can also lose their self-respect, sense of worth and purpose in life. People without a job are beset by an awful feeling that they no longer matter. Unemployment can lead to the break-up of marriages and to separation, divorce and domestic violence.
However, the harm caused by unemployment does not stop there. Unemployment damages the health of the jobless and their families. If one is out of a job one's mental and physical health deteriorates. Unemployment does not just make people ill. In plain English, unemployment kills and maims. It kills mainly by cancer, suicide, accidents and violence. For a middle-aged man to lose his job doubles his chances of dying in the next 10 years. Unemployment does not just kill the jobless : it kills their wives, husbands and children--born and unborn. What a wicked waste.
The cost of unemployment is not just borne by the jobless and their families. The Secretary of State admitted recently that it costs the taxpayer £9,000 a year to keep someone out of work. That is £9,000 in benefits paid out and tax not taken it. Even according to the official figures, the present mass unemployment is costing taxpayers £25 billion this year. That is equal to more than £1,000 for every family in the land. What a waste.
It does not end there. When people are out of work, they are not producing anything. Back at work, they could produce goods and services which would add to the country's wealth. If just the 10 per cent. who are officially jobless were back at work, they would produce goods and services worth more than £50 billion. That is equal to more than £2,000 for every family in the land. Instead, they are doing nothing. What a waste.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson : No, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman.
Even by the crudest and coldest Treasury standards of accountancy, and making no allowance for human misery, mass unemployment is costing a fortune. The cost of mass unemployment in terms of lost production--
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson : No, not at the moment.
The cost of mass unemployment in terms of lost production and loss to the taxpayer is therefore equal to more than £3,000 for every family in Britain. That is surely an intolerable cost.
Column 701
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : The hon. Gentleman has described a dire and concerning situation, and we share his concern. Why is the impression given that his party, given those circumstances, would seek to make matters worse by embracing the social chapter and increasing the burden on industry and also, no doubt, by increasing taxation which would also increase the burden on industry and make the level of unemployment much worse?
Mr. Dobson : If the hon. Gentleman bides his time, I will come to those matters.
The cost of unemployment does not end with those costs. The damage to health places extra strain on the national health service. Domestic violence and family breakdown place extra demands on social services, the police and the courts. By breaking up families, unemployment adds to homelessness. By giving young people nothing to do, it leads to crime. That does not mean that not having a job automatically makes someone a criminal. Unemployment does not provide an excuse for theft or violence.
Mr. Oppenheim : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson : No, I will not give way until I have finished making my point.
Mass youth unemployment means the breakdown of the ties that bind society together. Unemployment opens a gap between the generations. It creates a gulf between the dispossessed and those with possessions. With no honest way to earn a living, unemployed young people are exposed to the temptations of a life of crime which can provide more money and excitement than respectable society can offer.
Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North) : While my hon. Friend is on the subject of the relationship between crime and unemployment, will he comment on Clarke Foods which recently closed down Lyons Maid in my constituency? Perhaps he will refer specifically to allegations that have been made of insider dealing, fraud and possible gun-running by the proprietors of that company. Does not that example contrast sharply with the risks that young people take? The people who own companies such as Clarke Foods are often dodgy.
Mr. Dobson : I do not have such detailed information about the owners of Clarke Foods. However, I believe that the proposed closure-- throwing people out of work and reducing their pay--is a crime against the people of Knowsley.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye) : I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's belief that increased unemployment among young people will result in a higher burglary or crime rate. Is it not true that, although we had high employment, the crime rate continued to increase at a rate of which none of us would approve? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Sussex, which has high unemployment at present, the burglary rate has gone down?
Mr. Dobson : The fact is that we have had mass unemployment in many parts of the country since this Government took office in 1979. We have had rising crime, year in and year out. The greatest increase in the crime rate has occurred in the areas with the highest unemployment. As my hon. Friends will confirm, large and small pockets of disenchantment are developing all over Britain.
Column 702
Mr. Oppenheim : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Those pockets of disenchantment are filled with young people who are alienated from society. Those young people share fewer of our values, and are less and less convinced that anyone cares for them. They are prey to exploitation by the evil right-wing forces of prejudice, hatred and unreason, which we have already seen unleashed elsewhere in Europe.
What do the Government have to offer in response to all of that? Nothing, or next to nothing. The Secretary of State expresses her concern and sympathy. She talks about counselling and training. But she knows that her Department's training budget per unemployed person is less than half of what it was just three short years ago. Counselling and training and concern and sympathy may ease the pain of unemployment, but they are not enough. The only cure for unemployment is a job. The Secretary of State is doing nothing about jobs.
The autumn statement was so feeble that the Secretary of State and her colleagues have refused to estimate how many jobs it will create. I think that the reason for that refusal is that any jobs created would certainly be outpaced by the Government-induced job destruction which is taking place at the same time. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Government has anything to offer.
| Next Section
| Home Page |